who has the person. are you able to make the offer? >> not until we have finished the paperwork. it's not sitting anywhere. >> who is holding the paperwork? >> no one is holding the paperwork. it's new work. so it takes time for that to work through the process. >> in that process of hiring that person, how long has that been to start >> it's been a year. we initially advertised for the hedge fund position in february of 2014. >> i don't think it was that early, but april. >> it was over a year. obviously we couldn't hire anyone until we knew there was a strategy that the board would approve. it's not being

held up anywhere. >> that means you interviewed this person. is there a hedge turner. >> there is a few people interested in the job. it is their experience. i met with them you know like off site because i meet and talk with a lot of people but i don't have a job to offer anybody right now but we are assessing. so there is no "formal interview" but i know because this has been a conversation that's known nationwide is a number of people have reached out to me to express interest. >> i'm worried. >> it has taken a long time. jay is correct that there has been

some meaningful developments in the last week to help us finish this over the finish line. >> what is holding that up. >> it's a personnel matter that i would prefer not to discuss in a public session but i will also point out that the hang up was the length of time also that this board deliberated over whether there would be a strategy for which we would need to hire staff. so i would say measure our ability to hire from the point in time where you have approved that there is a strategy and i believe that we will be successful in very short order and as bill indicated there are a number of candidates that i have talked to and he's talked to. not a formal interview process but someone we can bring on board. >> can you bring me a time line of when that person would get on board? >> it would not take 3 months.

>> less than 3 months. >> it's hard to tell because they can turn us down. we will offer and what we select in 3 months. >> can you come back to us and what they are saying. if they are positive. did your first candidate not take it. >> we really can't in a public session to report on reasons why someone would turn us down. >> what i am very comfortable in saying though is great people want this job. they are experienced. the reasons are, this is a gateway city, this is an amazing place to live. it's a $20 billion plan and an opportunity to build a portfolio from the ground up. >> if you need help getting

that done. if you get stuck in places, let us know. >> i'm going to jump on that as well. i think there is maybe 2-3 things happening now in the retirement system now that are of great importance. excuse me it's the asset allocation. and you annoy we -- know we are carving out this area and maybe the metric we can talk about in session is at what point is an offer made to someone without talking specifics. i think that is maybe the -- i think that we should talk about this again next month sort of where we are in the process because again, i think everything else that we are doing is important but a lot of those things can be set aside because this is my opinion of the utmost importance. especially if you go back and talk about the

very long deliberation process about how forward we are with the system, i don't think that's going to change. i think we need talk about this next month in terms of when we can expect and offer made and if we are not able to identify good candidates, then that's a different issue and we need to talk about that. but the point is if there are great people and this is a great job, then we need to get to the point where we can offer and get over this hurdle. i agree with commissioner driscoll. i think that maybe we should talk about some of this again when commissioner macers is back. this is on you. if you can't fill the requirements this board has laid out, you need to tell us. i did not agree on the points. that's a different issue. we need to

reevaluate. please, we hold you to the fire but you have to hold us to the fire if you are going to set unrealistic expectation. >> i talked to enough people. i have talked to at least five and i would suggest this level of detail is not appropriate for this meeting. this is an on going recruitment. they are confidential in nature. i will report through my executive director report what i'm able to report on the success or progress related to this recruitment. it's wholly inappropriate for us to be having this discussion because there are folks who believe they are applying for this position that will have access to this discussion. so i would ask, i know you are interested. i will report as much as i can through my report as to the process for hiring for this position. >> i'm sorry, i wasn't trying to talk about the hiring. that is solely within your purview. my points are

two. one, we need to have some sort of indication of where we are in the process and if there is a hold up. let's get over that. the second point is having the group of people volunteering in their time looking at their rfp's if there is not expectation on this board. >> can i reply to that? >> no. >> i have a couple points. if i can go to staff memo. on page 3, point 6 on the update ks the hedge fund consultant. the cio the person to hire for the strategy which we discussed too long. the sculpture with -- consultant with hedge fund experience. my recollect legs -- recollection

commissioner driscoll ace point is well-taken. chief officer two public fund members with hedge fund experience and two city employees with >> two office of complex requirements and in selection of hedge fund

and strategy managers. so this board cannot change that as a basic city requirement for us to be able to include them. >> procurement. two members from procurement. >> i will come back in my report because the city does not allow us to do this or we can come back with a fifth person. >> it's to evaluate and approve because this was a motion of the board in terms of the composition of that team.

>> i think we should wait for that decision. >> rfp did not deal with the process. >> it has to do with that. >> it included but it was not part of the rfp process. we said we were going to gather a qualifying team and where the city provides the guideline for us to who we can include it who we can't include. >> an expert in procurement is not a person that is qualified to evaluate a hedge fund strategy or hedge fund manager. >> if that is the case, the appropriate point is a manner adopted by this board. >> i will tell you that i was very familiar and worked very carefully with president at this time to clarify what the motion was and it was two

staff cio and strategy, a consultant. not to include sfrs consultant and two representative of public plans that have subject matter expertise in the selection and there was not a procurement in the amendment to the motion. >> okay i think we need to clarify that. i understand the two representative with the public fund and experience. that's critical. the other is the subject matter experts absolutely and staff involved absolutely. >> the amendments made last month in the hedge fund to rfp i said one and not two with representatives with the subject plan and he moved to delete the one. so now the motion as reflected in the minutes doesn't match what

the board votes on and that diminishes that as two. >> we are not going be labor this. have you completed? >> yes. i have from commissioner mei berger. >> we are going to go forward. >> commissioner mei berger for 5 months prior to that was quoted. we have the five 5-year and the 10-year. that means the year 6-10. prima 3.35 and the benchmark 6.92. >> they were because of that? >> yes. >> great. thank you.

>> mr. clerk, let me back up for a second. discussion item 10a which is a discussion item. b, we are going to table it. >> there is no proxy. >> b is an item in case there is a proxy item to report. all you need is public comment. >> okay. thank you. >> let's take public comment on this item. >> public speaker: you mentioned europe and you mentioned china. i'm just curious as to whether you read in the media all the time about the much less level of liquidity in financial markets. i'm just curious whether or not that has the members of the

board and staff concern that there might be some ill liquidy event that is hard to say in the future. i don't mean to be a chicken little type of guy and i don't mean to imply that you should react to every news item, but things are starting to come out of left field here and i do read all of these reports about the lack of liquidity in public markets. i'm just wondering if that's a concern of the board and the staff. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. please call the next item. >> item 11. discussion item deferred compensation committee report. >> thank you. president cohen

and commissioners. deferred compensation committee met june 17, 2015, and received the presentation and stable value and product. today you will hear reports from amendments from dcd plan regarding the loan program that we presented for your review and approval. next in the agenda you will review a loan policy proposal from the subcommittee that will be presented to you for your review and approval and last thing that we received the management report from our interim director. the interim director will present in the following items, the two terms for approval. that ends

our report. all right. thank you very much. is there any discussion by the board. let's take public comment on item no. 11. defend compensation committee report. seeing none, public comment is closed. this is just a discussion item. please call the next item. >> item 12. action item review and prove amendments sfdcp plan document regarding loan program and other changes. >> good afternoon. as you recall you approved a loan program. in order to implement that program we need to implement the plan document to authorize the program and as we lawyers like to do once we start touching the document there were some other less important but definitely

relevant changes that we have included most of which are relating to definitions of domestic partners and relating to spouses. we have provided you with both a red line and a clean version and we are happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> okay colleagues, any discussion on this? nothing on this item? mr. driscoll? >> this document with all the red lining. i was trying to find a place under the history component to put our mission statement, our mandate statement. that's more cosmetic as opposed to the key parts of the loan program that we are trying to open up to benefit people. >> we are happy --

>> thank you. to answer your question about the loan program. >> okay. i'm sure there is members of the public that want to talk about this. all right. we are on public comment. item 12. nothing. all right. well let the record reflect there has been no public comment on this loan program. public comment is closed. let's entertain a motion. >> i move that we adopt staff's recommendation. >> second. >> all right motion made and seconded by acclimation. this motion passes. >> this is with the addition that we should be adding the mission statement to the document. >> frank, could you amend your

motion. >> amended as such. >> all right. there is one discussion? >> you said to comment about this program. one of the things about the loan program is it creates leakage in the plan. we are trying to give the opportunity to save and help them prepare for their own financial and security retirement. you say we are letting them borrow their own money. that's a good idea. but how to throw out the reporting requirements we are looking at a plan and how it's going up. and mostly from the private sector from their only pension program available to members, is something that employees get nervous about is people adequately preparing for retirement. it's over seeing the next monthly report. in the future, that's one of the changes in the report. how it's up for compensation program doing

and people borrowing and paying back. just give you the heads up about that. >> thank you. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? all right. this motion passes unanimously. please call the next item. item 13. review and approve loan policy. >> commissioners as we brought to you to establish the loan program, we told you the document, the meat of the bone would be in the loan document. it was presented to committee. they made some excellent suggestions that we had overlooked. we've incorporated those changes in this loan policy document is now presented to you for your consideration. i'm here to answer any questions. >> all right. is there any discussion in the recommendation before us. >> i move we adopt the

recommendation. >> okay. we'll get a second after public comment. public comment on the loan policy? >> thank you. just speaking as a former employee. colleagues who have participated in this and have had to withdraw some of their funds, one of the issues that apparently they didn't really understand or didn't hear and it's probably in here somewhere was the tax implication that when these funds are withdrawn, you know, they go in a pretax and they got whacked by both the feds and the statute and there was some understanding as to what the tax implications would be. perhaps in the practice or documentation that goes forward for employees that there is some kind of statement that reminds them or indicates that there is some severe tax implications on both

state and federal levels. that's it. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> a motion is made. i need a second. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? this motion passes unanimously. please call the next item. >> item 14. discussion item. sf dcp manager's report. >> commissioners you have before you the manager's report. i want to point out the interest rate for the third quarter of 2014 has been established 1.30% which is a small but definite increase so we are moving in the right direction. we are here to answer any questions? >> colleagues, any discussion on this item? none. okay. let's go to public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public

comment is closed. >> this is a discussion item. all right. mr. clerk, can you call the next item. action item. approval of president's committee appointment. >> do you have your binder. >> we provided a copy at your seat. all right. >> i'm not sure if a member of the public has had an opportunity to view this. i'm going to read it. i'm proposing the chair committee to be chaired by commissioner bridges, and mac ras bridges and cohen, personnel head up by cohen and my driscoll and

mei berger. the governance committee chaired by mac ras also on the committee would be pass skin, jordan and stans bury. the chair compensation by stans bury and the goc will be by mei berger. before we do that. let's do public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? >> yes. is there discussion? >> i have some discussion on it. i have been past chair for the deferred compensation committee immediately prior to commissioner bridges.

commissioner driscoll before that. i would like to offer just two changes. >> sure. >> i would like to see commissioner driscoll as the chair to deferred compensation and for governance if commissioner macers is is the newest chair, i think it would be recommended for me to chair this committee. >> would you be willing to chair this compensation? >> yes. >> okay, does anyone else have any concerns? >> yeah, i would just suggest regarding the other committee governance. i would wait until mr. mac ers a here to do that. if you want to confer it to the next meeting. >> i think 2 points, if a

person chooses to be here or not to be here. i don't think it should not be held up because someone chooses not to be here. it's a committee that he's brand new to. they are minor changes and similarel. el -- simple. they make sense. i don't think there is a reason to hold it up. >> i would like to have a conversation with mr. macers. can we move commissioner driscoll into the deferred compensation chair position and let's not accept the suggestion on the governance committee. we'll work this out. all right. >> that's fine. can you amend your motion. >> yeah, i would amend the motion to have regarding the deferred compensation committee as

suggested by commissioner stans bury. >> i think we should leave it the way it is for the governance committee. if you want to delay that until the next meeting, i think that's fine as a courtesy to him. >> i think the motion is you want to make the modification to deferred compensation and leave that committee as it is and bring it to the board next time around only for that committee. >> that's correct. >> that will be fair. >> okay, thank you. mr. clerk, did you get all that? all right. thank you. motion has been made and seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> all right. this motion passes unanimously. thank you, folks. okay, we are almost there. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item. >> item no. 16. the report to

the board alliance. >> regarding the heart of the city charitable campaign. i would recommend the board approve this. this is usual practice. >> you said usual practice. >> i move to adopt. >> public is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will accept that adoption. >> i second. cohen. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? mr. clerk, please call

item no. 17. city clerk: discussion item, executive director's report. >> i attended june 10th, the day of the last board meeting budget a finance committee hearing related to our budget even though we had a 2-year budgeted that had been approved. we were required and i was pleased to go before the committee and answer questions and the questions on the board's process on fossil fuel and investment and those issues and i was pleased to be able to report the progress made since last year. i will also report there is a hearing scheduled a week from today in the budget and finance committee regarding the karen cancer program. we

have 11 of those and they want to not amend the charter but include a cancer and heart pneumonia presumption which i think is identical to the heart and pneumonia that exist in the police and fire plans. the third was a request of then president request that i provide a briefing memo to the retirement board related to what we expect to the the impact of the california supreme court decision denying the petitions for review of the appeals court decision for the benefits program. this is the information we have at the current time. until we have the opportunity to review a final order and make sure that we understand how to administer that final order. we can't